A. T HE R IGHT TO NAT IONALIT Y FOR EV E RY INDIV IDUAL A.2 Right to nationality in Indian law Where the petitioner’s nationality is less than conclusive, courts consistently interpret domestic law to assert the right to nationality of the concerned parties. Mangal Sain is an early case from the Punjab High Court.32 The petitioner argued that he had migrated from his birthplace in present-day Pakistan to India in 1944 and had been ordinarily resident in India since then and was thus an Indian citizen under Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution. The Court interpreted ‘migrate’ in Article 6 broadly to hold that the petitioner’s movements, ambitions, sentiments, conduct, and habits all evinced his clear intention to remain and permanently settle in India (much like the conditions of the aforementioned genuine link test), and that he was, therefore, a citizen of India. The Court was sensitive to the effect that a narrow construction of ‘migrate’ would – in cases like the petitioner’s who possessed no other nationality – make such persons stateless. More recently in Prabhleen Kaur, a young woman approached the Delhi High Court after her Indian passport renewal application was denied as her parents’ nationality was considered ‘doubtful’.33 Since the petitioner was born in India after 1987, she would be an Indian citizen if either of her parents were Indian citizens at the time of her birth. The Court dismissed the Ministry of External Affairs’ (‘MEA’) impugnation as unjust. It held that a neighbour’s allegation that her parents were Afghan citizens, and some discrepancies in the birth registry at Amritsar were not sufficient evidence to dislodge the petitioner’s assertion that their family had migrated to India during Partition. The Court held that the MEA could not deny a passport on a mere doubt, especially when the petitioner and both her parents had been issued passports in the past. Crucially, the Court reiterated the adverse consequences of MEA’s stance – the petitioner had never set foot in Afghanistan, and clearly had no moorings to any country but India, so doubting her nationality at this stage would 32  Mangal Sain v Shrimati Shanno Devi AIR (1959) P&H 175 (Punjab & Haryana High Court). It was upheld by the Supreme Court in Shanno Devi v Mangal Sain AIR (1961) SC 58. 33  Prabhleen Kaur v Union of India & Anr (2018) 253 DLT 602 (Delhi High Court). chapter i • status 49 SECTION I.A.2